Time to Procure a Valkyrie

Warrhead Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> If anything, valks would probably be made of a lot
> more composite materials.

Aren't Valks made of "hyper-carbon" in the show?? Maybe that shit don't corrode.

Which makes me wonder...the F-22 and eventually the F-35 will be painted, BUT is the paint really there for corrosion-resistance? Obviously, the paint is there for radar-absorption and low visual observability...but if most of the control surfaces are made of composites, that shit doesn't rust. Of course, all the actuators, landing gear, etc., will still be metal and will need paint...

Sanjeev Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Warrhead Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > If anything, valks would probably be made of a
> lot
> > more composite materials.
>
> Aren't Valks made of "hyper-carbon" in the show??
> Maybe that shit don't corrode.
>
> Which makes me wonder...the F-22 and eventually
> the F-35 will be painted, BUT is the paint really
> there for corrosion-resistance? Obviously, the
> paint is there for radar-absorption and low visual
> observability...but if most of the control
> surfaces are made of composites, that shit doesn't
> rust. Of course, all the actuators, landing gear,
> etc., will still be metal and will need paint...

Can't really specifically say if paint will be applied to the composite parts for the sake of corrosion control, but radar absorption is still a factor, and you can bet that a CAG would still say "paint 'em anyway" for the sake of uniformity, unless there was an instruction that said otherwise.

> > Warrhead Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Don't write pilots off just yet.
>
> Well, I misspoke. There will always, of course, be
> pilots--they'll just be sitting in comfortable
> remote control simulators from the safety of their
> carriers.

Very cool. I liked the way the shoulders were done.
The main thing thing that scared me was the constant creaking that the joints made when the guy was handling that Valk (I've never handled resin, so I don't know if that's normal or not). Also, the lack of any real locking mechanisms would seem annoying if your going to handle it with any real regularity, but that's forgivable considering that this is a fan created garage kit.

------------------------------------------------
"Ranchero music is the Mexican form of psychological warfare. Eventually it will break us and we will give them back California, anything to stop those cursed accordions."

------------------------------------------------
"Ranchero music is the Mexican form of psychological warfare. Eventually it will break us and we will give them back California, anything to stop those cursed accordions."

Hey, looks good to me. The review is a bit tedious, but the vids are very concise. The joint design is very striking--not just detents everywhere, but the elaborate tab-locking mechanism in the shoulder is fucking money!

I'm SO glad they kept the city in the leg. I'm hoping it can be removed without too much headache in order to be painted up nicely!

And just to clarify what I said above, I'm aware that the tv version is very different, but I'd be happy to buy this same movie mold just repainted in tv colors...and of course with Prometheus and Daedalus instead of the ARMDs.

It comes in Squeakyfoam!
Looks good. Of course, I like the TV version colors on the body, with the actual carriers, masked half red and all, but when someone walks into a room, they're gonna bug out seeing this, and not really care, and neither will I that much. It's the SDF-1!

Price doesn't seem out of line at all for this.

Interesting about the note on Yamato actually rearranging the proportions a bit to make it look right to their eyes, compared to just scaling down the 1/2000 version.

Vincent Z. Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> A recolor of the DYRL one or a full new mold?

Either; like I said before, I'd be happy with just a repaint of the DYRL, as long as it had proper Prometheus/Daedalus arms. That's kinda the deal-breaker for me right now with the DYRL toy.

> Isn't the DYRL one considered more canon now ever
> since Macross Plus?

Dunno. I mean, I don't really care what's "canon" or not...but I don't see how Macross Plus changed anything.

While I enjoyed DYRL (I grew up with it as "Clash of the Bionoids"...boy, was THAT confusing!), I always thought some of the changes were a bit flaky. Like, ALL life is wiped out on Earth? Really? So the "human" race is totally repopulated and ready to colonize the stars in no time...by just a few thousand humans and a buncha horny shiploads o'Zentraedi??? :P

Sanjeev Wrote:
>
> While I enjoyed DYRL (I grew up with it as "Clash
> of the Bionoids"...boy, was THAT confusing!), I
> always thought some of the changes were a bit
> flaky. Like, ALL life is wiped out on Earth?
> Really? So the "human" race is totally repopulated
> and ready to colonize the stars in no time...by
> just a few thousand humans and a buncha horny
> shiploads o'Zentraedi??? :P

As I understand it, DYRL is regarded as a docu-drama war movie within the Macross universe. People in the Macross universe saw it in theaters, much like people in our universe went to see... oh, like... Michael Bay's PEARL HARBOR.

The current MACROSS THE FIRST re-visitation of the original SDF MACROSS features retcons of the Macross, Zentraedi characters and other elements which attempt to smooth the differences between the designs of TV Macross and DYRL.

I've always been curious about Kawamori's thought on which 'vision' of Macross is closest to his own vision.

Gcrush Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
>
> Uh, at what point would we consider a valk's paint
> scheme a tactical decision? When they were
> picking what primary color they wanted for accent
> marks and pin-striping, or when they decided that
> a color like white would be a good "low-contrast"
> choice against the backdrop of outer space?
>

The backdrop of space is about 3 or 4 Kelvin (about -455F). Everything made of matter is in high contrast to that...no matter the color it is painted, or its shape. There is ZERO possibility of stealth in space. Most everything we detect in space is through passive radio telescope observation...This radiation cannot be masked, no radar involved or even needed. With the technology we have now a burst from the Space Shuttle's Maneuvering system while in Earth orbit could be detected from an observation post way out in the asteroid belt.

MSW Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Old, I know...Just have to correct some
> misconceptions.
> The backdrop of space is about 3 or 4 Kelvin
> (about -455F). Everything made of matter is in
> high contrast to that...no matter the color it is
> painted, or its shape. There is ZERO possibility
> of stealth in space. Most everything we detect in
> space is through passive radio telescope
> observation...This radiation cannot be masked, no
> radar involved or even needed. With the technology
> we have now a burst from the Space Shuttle's
> Maneuvering system while in Earth orbit could be
> detected from an observation post way out in the
> asteroid belt.

Sure, fine. But why do the spaceship/jet-plane/robot things use see-through canopies in space? As you established, you don't need to "see" anything in space because very basic instruments will do that for you. You can't hide matter in space. Yet there they are, rocketing around with windshields. What exactly do they need to see? Well, maybe they need the windshields when doing atmospheric stuff, though that doesn't explain why they use them in space. So maybe the white coloration on the places is just the result of an unpainted or raw composite material. Except they have squad markings and coloration. For what purpose if visual conformation is a moot point? Psychological or morale effects? So those little colored strips are the best they could come up with?

Their design rationale seems to be the following.

P1. Nothing in space is invisible; the enemy will always be able to see us in space or against the backdrop of space using instrumentation.

P2. Despite operating in space there are still things which require direct visual confirmation; we need windshields in case we need to "see" something that does not appear on instrumentation.

P3. The enemy does not follow P2; we do not need to consider the possibility that our ships will be visually discerned at any time.

P4. Only we follow P2; any treatment of the ships' exterior is for our purposes alone.

So there's no such thing as low-vis in space, but human pilots still apparently need visualization in space AND humans are the only ones who will be looking at their ships. That's a mess. Is there any basic scientific or engineering rationale behind propositions two through four?

And, while we're at it - no one has yet explained why they're using 1960s aerodynamics at a time when they had access to FTL technology. Or why they would try to sandwich two distinct environmental functions on one craft. Even if you stick with the confines of the narrative there's not a lot of internal logic there. Your tech either magically defies physics or it is subject to it. The middle ground stuff is bullshit.

As someone who enjoys robotized smash'em up cartoons I'm not taking issue with the need to use handwavium in the genre. Hard-science is a hard sell for audiences and it's obvious that most designers were never engineers. Fine. But what's irritating is when people try to bust out the no-prize theories for why sometimes exists a particular way within a work of fiction. That stuff is either random because no one thought about it or it's deliberate because they thought about it enough to push the story forward. Neither of those is science.

Why are Valkyries basically white transforming F-14s with color stripes that shoots both lasers and missiles? Because at the time they were created it was a synthesis of cool visuals with some practical constraints in the medium. The white coloration is cheap and contrasts the ships well against multiple backgrounds - especially space. The coloration, squad markings, and clear canopies are there for the benefit of the audience and allow them to differentiate the central cast. The F-14 was the pinnacle of cool aircraft at the time and transforming into a robot was, too. And so on.

Trying to jam hard-science into soft-core sci-fi robot porn is lame. My original retort to the complaints about the gray coloration of the rib-flaps on the robots seems to have been misconstrued. They're gray because they're gray. They don't need to be white. I was arguing against the need for any rationale behind the color choice.

Gcrush Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I thought the same thing at first, then I started
> thinking about the different color. If you think
> about it, the surface area of the plane is going
> to be different from the robot - especially around
> the center mass since the damn thing is basically
> folding itself inside-out to make the limbs. So
> as the plane transforms the surface separates and
> reveals the mechanical guts inside. Which would
> look different because they're not primed and
> painted like the skin of the plane. Right?

Here's a better explanation of what I was talking about. I think Sanjeev is the only one that got it. Because the robot mode of the Valk has a different surface area than when it is a plane that extra bit needs to come from somewhere else. That extra bit is represented by the gray torso inserts that appear to show expanded panels. In the image below, those panels are yellow and blue with the surface area of the plane being green. When it's all planed-up they're sandwiched together. When it's all roboted-up they're folded out. But in sandwich/plane mode those surfaces are in contact with one another. If they're coated with something it's going to get abraded by the mechanical action of the vibrations in the structure causing the surfaces to move against each other because they're sandwiched together. That's an even bigger mess if you get space dust or other particles trapped in between them.

Looking at that, there should be a lot more exposed/unpainted/different-material surfaces between robot and plane modes. Basically anywhere you have surfaces in contact with one another. Like around the joints. Unless the whole damn thing is made from the same stuff and none of it needs surfacing. In which case you wouldn't have any intrinsically, differently colored bits. For example, why paint the intake covers gray if they're made from the same composite material as the shell? Unless they're not. But if they're not, why assume that any of the surfaces should be the same color? And so on.

Ignoring the fact that these are still F-14 Robots zooming about in space, it's a huge mess. You either like the way the inserts look or you don't. Personally, I'd rather have them in place to fill out the ugly gaps in the robot than not have them at all.

I don't really know about the canopies. My understanding is that Yamato either stopped doing it all together or it is only on certain releases. You may want to check Macrossworld to get the full scoop.

A cursory inspection of the acronym nuttiness on MW forums reveals that, yes, the rainbow canopy was dropped at a certain point. I can see where the arm packs look different as well as their coloration. And the different bubblegum fingerhands. And pilot coloring.

I couldn't find any side-by-side shots to compare the whiteness on the different versions. But... With the TV version in hand it sure looks a hell of a lot brighter than then DYRL version I had a few years ago (and somewhat regrettably sold).